1) If they were in 'deep trouble' for cause, at the very least, they would have been removed from their commands and banished to obscurity which is a punishment that the Admiralty could inflict on any officer at it's pleasure. That this didn't happen and in fact the officers were given accolades instead gives us a good idea of what a BofI would have done.Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,
@ Dunmunro,
I see that you still like to play dummy and avoid to admit that those 2 Officers were in deep troubles on May 31st, 1941.
So, let me make my question more simple.
From what you can read on the above May 31st, 1941 letter, Adm Pound was proposing to Adm Tovey :
1) A recognition or award ( medals ) for Wake-Walker and Leach conduct in action.
2) An initiative to verify wheter or not there was a misconduct in action by those 2 Officers with all related consequences.
By simply reading Adm Tovey response in writing to Adm Pound it should be fairly easy to answer now.
What is your position, the number 1 or number 2 ?
A simple answer will suffice and that is all I need to close this debate.
Bye Antonio
2) The action resulted in the loss of Hood and a sharp defeat for the RN. Naturally there were calls for a BoFI and IMHO, there should have been one to ascertain all the facts. Tovey was pointing out, quite correctly, that he was in overall command, and that any BofI would have to include him, as the officers in tactical command were operating with his authority and approval.
We simply cannot determine what scope or focus a BofI would have had. But it's entirely wrong to suppose that it would have focused solely on finding fault which is why there is no "yes or no" answer to your query.
As for who the 'dummy' is I have to ask you why no other historian has ever found fault with Leach or W-W's actions?